Prison Justice served ? ? ? return of the death sentence ? ? ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Try to make allowances for Dai Vincent 'cause he's as old as the hills. He's off his cake most of the time as staff at his care home will confirm. Poor sod wets himself more times per day than Liz and Phil the Greek combined do.

---

Who the hell opened your crypt?

Organ, I don’t think this thread is a safe space for you. The hardliners on here are talking about torturing people. Given your unnatural sexual proclivities I think you could be on their list. Especially as some of them are animal lovers but not in your sense of the phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Thats all thanks to you and your ilk

---

Yeah my book keeping for all the old people's homes has fallen behind in fairness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OurManFlint II

And that is getting to that stage of arrest and investigation! It is well known that the upper echelons of the rich and powerful are crawling with rapist, murders and especially child abusers. Whether it be, police, politicians, church and the royal families. Yet all these raging frothing at the mouth knee jerks on here won't lift a finger to help remove this protective layer. Just sneer from the sidelines and throw rotten fruit.

Prison. The rich never enter, the poor never leave.

---

I don’t think there is evidence of rampant rape, murder or child abuse by the upper classes. In fact, I don’t even think that Jimmy Savile did any more groping than the average dj or pop star in the 1960s or 70s. Nearly everything you read in the papers is either a lie, an exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I don’t think there is evidence of rampant rape, murder or child abuse by the upper classes. In fact, I don’t even think that Jimmy Savile did any more groping than the average dj or pop star in the 1960s or 70s. Nearly everything you read in the papers is either a lie, an exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

---

You have to be on a wind up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

You have to be on a wind up

---

Probably another nut job that subscribes to Q anon or whatever his name is on YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I don’t think there is evidence of rampant rape, murder or child abuse by the upper classes. In fact, I don’t even think that Jimmy Savile did any more groping than the average dj or pop star in the 1960s or 70s. Nearly everything you read in the papers is either a lie, an exaggeration or a misunderstanding.

---

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

---

Imagine being a person who defends Jimmy Saville, how badly you're failing in life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

This is the lowest point of CCMB in the time I've been a member. Nice one.

---

I can only assume you joined last week.

I doubt if you personally have any inside knowledge about Jimmy Savile, but, no doubt, you have read about his evil deeds in the papers. How do you know that is true? You don't. When I read anything in the papers about my areas of interest or about people I know personally I find that the papers have got many of the facts wrong. I therefore assume the stories in the paper outside my areas of interest or expertise are also full of errors and lies.

If you want some background on the Jimmy Savile case you can read the Anna Racoon blog. The author behind the blog is dead now but she knew some of the girls who started the Savile abuse story. Anna Racoon was a solicitor who was very skeptical about the Savile stories. Her own life story was very sad but she wrote about it in a very funny way. Her blog is a good read.

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/07/24/t...-savile-story/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I can only assume you joined last week.

I doubt if you personally have any inside knowledge about Jimmy Savile, but, no doubt, you have read about his evil deeds in the papers. How do you know that is true? You don't. When I read anything in the papers about my areas of interest or about people I know personally I find that the papers have got many of the facts wrong. I therefore assume the stories in the paper outside my areas of interest or expertise are also full of errors and lies.

If you want some background on the Jimmy Savile case you can read the Anna Racoon blog. The author behind the blog is dead now but she knew some of the girls who started the Savile abuse story. Anna Racoon was a solicitor who was very skeptical about the Savile stories. Her own life story was very sad but she wrote about it in a very funny way. Her blog is a good read.

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/07/24/t...-savile-story/

---

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

---

Checkmate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

---

Boom!!!! As some say!!!

Someone defending Jimmy Saville is something I never thought I'd see on here.

Someone saying they trust the justice system to kill people who are child abusers and murderers and then going into a conspiracy defending one of the biggest child abusers undermining his whole argument and defending Saville in the process is next level :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Checkmate.

---

In most cases it would be checkmate but not against Splotty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Scotland Yard's investigation revealed 214 criminal sexual offences across 28 police forces, between 1955 and 2009.

So just to be clear - the same justice system that you trust to make decisions about whether someone is guilty of murder and should be sentenced to death, is in this case wrong about 214 sexual offences across 28 police forces?

---

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Someone defending Jimmy Saville is something I never thought I'd see on here.

Someone saying they trust the justice system to kill people who are child abusers and murderers and then going into a conspiracy defending one of the biggest child abusers undermining his whole argument and defending Saville in the process is next level :hehe:

---

Disclaimer:

I would like it put on record that whilst I am in support for some of Splottys beliefs on capital punishment I do not share his views on Jimmy Saville.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

---

You rambled on about accepting your fate even if you knew you were innocent, based on the facts the judge had to consider, you said you’d accept his sentence of death.


Or something along them lines, I’m still off my tits high as a kite after reading your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

---

You think murderers should be executed but you don't trust the justice system to decide if people are murderers or not. You're tying yourself in knots, time to cut your losses I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

You rambled on about accepting your fate even if you knew you were innocent, based on the facts the judge had to consider, you said you’d accept his sentence of death.


Or something along them lines, I’m still off my tits high as a kite after reading your posts.

---

I believe murderers deserve to be executed. That statement says nothing about how we decide if someone is guilty of murder. We will never know for certain if someone really is guilty because we don't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes innocent people will be executed because we couldn't be bothered finding an improved way of discovering guilt. But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason. It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I never said I trusted the justice system. I just said that murderers should be executed. The difference between the two things was made clear in one of my posts.

I don't know if people are lying or telling the truth about Savile. If they are saying that he groped them then some of them are probably telling the truth. After Operation Midland we know that the police are very gullible when it comes to investigating cases of abuse especially when financial incentives are involved. Perhaps if you read Anna Raccons blogs about Savile you might look at it all more objectively.

---

Try and do some critical thinking now, you think the justice system makes mistakes (including bizzarly jimmy saville for some reason). If this justice system makes mistakes, do you think we should give them the power to kill the people they convict?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Disclaimer:

I would like it put on record that whilst I am in support for some of Splottys beliefs on capital punishment I do not share his views on Jimmy Saville.

---

Splotty??? Got me worried😱

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splott parker

Splotty??? Got me worried��

---

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

I believe murderers deserve to be executed. That statement says nothing about how we decide if someone is guilty of murder. We will never know for certain if someone really is guilty because we don't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes innocent people will be executed because we couldn't be bothered finding an improved way of discovering guilt. But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason. It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

---

Eye witness accounts for about 20 odd percent of all investigations and focus, yet 75% of cases based on eye witness convictions are over-turned when scientific evidence is presented.

Scientifically proven that eye-witness is 100% unreliable unless collaborated with other scientific evidence.

Whilst my numbers might be out, yours is a ridiculous statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

---

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

Quote:

---

But no system is ever perfect and sometimes someone will be found guilty of murder because of some freak occurrence or coincidence that defies logic or reason.

---

Surely that argument blows any argument for the death penalty away. Why would you ever want an innocent person killed even if the chance is miniscule?

Quote:

---

It is the same with any crime. If you stopped punishing people because there is a one in a billion chance that they are innocent then no one would be found guilty of any crime.

---

The chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you think our criminal justice system is that accurate you must be even more off your nut than you've come across in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

This is what happens when you go by feelings instead of evidence. I am not Splott Dai.

When you look at all the evidence against Savile it is the relatively small number of accusers that surprises me. Let us say there are 100 known victims - I don't know if this is the real figure. How many different people did Savile meet in his career? Let's say 50 a week. That's probably on the conservative side. He did that for 55 years. That's 143,000 different people he met. If he was an uncontrolled sex pervert I would expect a far higher number of victims.

Sometimes we are unduly influenced by the numbers we see in the papers. Here is a little puzzle for you. Suppose the police decide to do a breathalyzer test at 9.00 on a Sunday morning and they are stopping people completely randomly. They are not looking at your driving at all. Let us suppose they know from previous random tests during that time period 1 person in a 1000 will be driving drunk. Suppose that the breathalyzer test is 95% accurate - there is only a 5% false positive chance. That morning they have stopped 1000 drivers and you are one of them. You have failed the test. How likely is it that you are drunk?

---

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

---

You wrong!!!! Never!! 😁

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

That's more accurate than eye witness evidence though. You're putting forward more arguments against the death penalty with every post.

(95% accurate doesn't mean wrong 5% of the time btw, that would be 95% reliable. If it was 95% accuracy you would just build in a 10% error margin to counteract it)

---

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Treseder

You wrong!!!! Never!! ��

---

Do one. Pansy man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

I have a feeling David Vincent is Splott Dai but I could be wrong.

---

Splott Dai was nutty but he wasn't this nutty was he? Ask David Vincent if he's ever been shot in the arse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

---

I'd say with you there's a 100% chance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

This is just quick puzzle so forget the false negative. Just imagine there is only a false positive. What is the chance that you are really drunk?

---

1 in 50

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Splott Dai was nutty but he wasn't this nutty was he? Ask David Vincent if he's ever been shot in the arse

---

Say "Zionism" 3 times while looking in the mirror and see if David Vincent appears behind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

1 in 50

---

Good. You've been stopped by the police and you've failed the 95% reliable breathalyzer test but it is very unlikely that you are drunk. That would surprise a lot of people.

Now for an extra point can anyone see the relevance of my little puzzle to the Savile case.

Also if anyone read the Anna Racoon article where she casts doubt on the complaint by Savile's relation has their confidence in Savile's guilt been diminished in any way, e.g. gone from 100% guilty to 99% guilty. If your belief in his guilt is just based on feelings and not evidence then I wouldn't expect any change.

Hold on....Anna Racoon says Savile is innocent. Anna Racoon! This is a gamechanger. Once Anna Racoon gets involved, you know it's a roller coaster. I'm ready to change my mind on anything when I get stuck into the one and only Anna Racoon's blog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Hold on....Anna Racoon says Savile is innocent. Anna Racoon! This is a gamechanger. Once Anna Racoon gets involved, you know it's a roller coaster. I'm ready to change my mind on anything when I get stuck into the one and only Anna Racoon's blog.

---

And I always thought Cyril Sneer was the bad guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Surely that argument blows any argument for the death penalty away. Why would you ever want an innocent person killed even if the chance is miniscule?

The chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million. If you think our criminal justice system is that accurate you must be even more off your nut than you've come across in this thread.

---

Whatever system you have innocent people will be killed. If your sole argument against the death penalty is innocent people being killed then you should be for the death penalty. The deterrent effect will save many innocents from death and also you will not have murderers being let out or escaping and killing again.

I didn't mean there is a one a billion chance of a miscarriage of justice under the present system. I meant that even if we have an almost failproof system - e.g. everyone watched all the time with CCTV - we will still have glitches that will lead to people being punished unfairly. At the moment our system is so hopeless that all it takes is for some unstable person to shout "witch" or "paedo" and to point the finger and you are in big trouble.

The idea that Savile is guilty of nothing more than being a groper like many entertainment people from the 1960s and 1970s is not insane. There are sites like the following where this is claimed. Don't forget that until a few years ago millions of readers of The Sun leered at topless pictures of 16 years olds. Sexual harassment was standard fare in many offices and factories.

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/

Carl Beech, helped by Tom Watson MP, said that Savile tortured him. Beech said the same about the heads of MI5, MI6, the head of the army and his assistant, a former Prime Minister and other politicians. Beech was given £20k without having to prove anything. Most of the money Savile left for charities went to lawyers and the rest went to anyone who said he or she was a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

And I always thought Cyril Sneer was the bad guy

---

Steady, people have feelings you know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Vincent

Whatever system you have innocent people will be killed. If your sole argument against the death penalty is innocent people being killed then you should be for the death penalty. The deterrent effect will save many innocents from death and also you will not have murderers being let out or escaping and killing again.

I didn't mean there is a one a billion chance of a miscarriage of justice under the present system. I meant that even if we have an almost failproof system - e.g. everyone watched all the time with CCTV - we will still have glitches that will lead to people being punished unfairly. At the moment our system is so hopeless that all it takes is for some unstable person to shout "witch" or "paedo" and to point the finger and you are in big trouble.

The idea that Savile is guilty of nothing more than being a groper like many entertainment people from the 1960s and 1970s is not insane. There are sites like the following where this is claimed. Don't forget that until a few years ago millions of readers of The Sun leered at topless pictures of 16 years olds. Sexual harassment was standard fare in many offices and factories.

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.com/

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/

Carl Beech, helped by Tom Watson MP, said that Savile tortured him. Beech said the same about the heads of MI5, MI6, the head of the army and his assistant, a former Prime Minister and other politicians. Beech was given £20k without having to prove anything. Most of the money Savile left for charities went to lawyers and the rest went to anyone who said he or she was a victim.

---

Do you want to buy some magic beans?

http://buysomemagicbeans.blogspot.com/

This site says they are really good.

The states in the US with the death penalty have a higher crime rate the the states without it so if your one point is that it’s a deterrent you’ve already lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Do one. Pansy man.

---

:hehe: